Got an item about
liberal lunacy? Conservative success? Send
it in to ESR's Tidbits section!

web
posted December 3, 2001

Watching the children

London police are planning to register children who exhibit criminal
potential in an effort to prevent them from developing into full-fledged
lawbreakers.

Kids who tag buildings with graffiti, skip school, or even talk back
to adults run the risk of being entered into a database program that will
be used to monitor their behavior as they grow up, according to police
sources.

Law enforcement officials say the measure is needed to combat rampant
juvenile crime, but critics condemn it as an extreme form of police profiling.

The plan was unveiled in November in a speech by Ian Blair, London's
deputy police commissioner, to the Youth Justice Board, the government
agency that supervises Great Britain's juvenile justice system.

Teachers, social workers, health care professionals, law enforcement
agents and other authorities who have contact with troublemakers will
contribute information to the database program, which will be rolled out
in 11 London boroughs before being implemented nationally, according to
a copy of the speech. Special squads formed by police and community workers
will supervise the actions and behavior of children included in the registry.

"With partners in those boroughs, we intend to create an intelligence
nexus, which will hold sensitive information about large numbers of children,
many of whom have not yet and probably will not actually drift into active
criminality. This is pretty revolutionary stuff," Blair said.

The deputy police commissioner said the registry was needed to combat
a jump in juvenile delinquency. While most crime indicators have dropped
in Great Britain, street crimes committed by children have skyrocketed,
according to government data. Between 50 and 75 percent of the muggings
that occurred on London's streets in the first nine months of this year
were perpetrated by minors, studies show.

Local authorities will use the database to identify underlying causes
of children's bad behavior and recommend therapy or substance abuse treatment
programs.

"In this process, we have every intention of using intensive surveillance
and supervision programs," Blair said.

Asked for a comment on the program, a spokeswoman from the Youth Justice
Board issued the following statement:

"The Youth Justice Board is supportive of the idea of increasing
information sharing in respect of young people at risk of becoming involved
in criminality, and we will be joining with the Met Police to look at
ways this can be achieved."

A Metropolitan Police spokesman refused to discuss further details of
the plan, saying it was still in an exploratory stage.

Privacy concerns aren't expected to derail the effort. In his speech,
Blair said that Section 115 of the country's Crime and Disorder Act, which
allows for disclosure of private information to investigate crimes, may
override the Data Protection Act, which regulates information-sharing
among government agencies.

But the director of Privacy International, Simon Davies, said the registries
were tantamount to police "profiling gone mad."

"I shudder to think of the action that could be taken by authorities
with such a database," Davies said. "All I can see coming out
of this is greater criminalization of children and heightened discrimination
against certain racial groups."

The U.S. Supreme Court refused on November 26 to be drawn into a debate
over the president's power in international dealmaking.

Justices had been asked to strike down the North American Free Trade
Agreement in a case that also questioned the constitutionality of other
deals. The court declined without comment. A union says NAFTA is invalid
because it was not endorsed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, a constitutional
requirement for treaties.

The United Steelworkers of America claim was rejected in 1999 by a federal
judge in Birmingham, Ala., and then again earlier this year by the 11th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

"A judicial declaration invalidating NAFTA would clearly risk international
embarrassment of both the executive and legislative branches," the
Bush administration told the court.

The administration maintains there was nothing wrong with the way the
agreement was handled. NAFTA was signed by then president Bill Clinton
in 1992 and approved by Congress the following year -- by votes of 234-200
in the House and 61-38 in the Senate.

The union said that since the 1940s, international agreements have generally
been treated as congressional-executive agreements, not treaties.

"Whether we are right or wrong, our submission -- and the question
we raise -- is one that goes to the heart of the constitution's structural
framework for making international agreements," the union's attorney,
Paul Whitehead, said in urging justices to review the case.

NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, eliminates trade barriers among the
United States, Mexico and Canada gradually over 15 years. There have been
widespread disagreements over which nations have benefited, or been hurt,
the most.

The appeals court had said the constitution "clearly granted the
political branches an enormous amount of authority in the area of foreign
affairs and commerce." The court also said the union's lawsuit raised
a political question inappropriate for the courts to decide.

Cuba conditionally offers to indemnify U.S. firms

Cuba has offered to compensate 6,000 U.S. firms and citizens whose property
was nationalized after the 1959 revolution, providing Washington takes
into account hardships caused by its nearly 4-decade-old embargo against
the Caribbean island.

Cuba's Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque made the offer shortly before
the U.N. General Assembly voted 167 to 3 on November 27 for a resolution
urging an end to the U.S. sanctions, saying they violated international
law.

The vote against the United States, the 10th in as many years, repeated
last year's record result. Those opposing the resolution, besides the
United States, were Israel and the Marshall islands, the same countries
as in 2000.

Abstaining were Latvia, Micronesia and Nicaragua. Another 16 countries
did not vote, some because they had not paid their dues, others because
they did not wish to take part.

Perez, in his address to the assembly, detailed the U.S. prohibitions
and said Cuba would be willing to reach an agreement "for the nearly
6,000 U.S. companies and citizens" whose properties were nationalized
after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution.

But he qualified his offer by saying, "Cuba recognizes their rights
-- and would be willing to reach an agreement that also takes into account
the extremely burdensome economic and human hardships inflicted on our
country by the blockade."

"The blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba must be
lifted," Perez said.

The assembly's nonbinding resolution, as in previous years, referred
to the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which allowed U.S. citizens who were Cuban
citizens before the 1959 revolution to file suit in U.S. courts against
foreign companies or individuals who "traffic" in expropriated
property.

And the resolution again called on all states to "refrain from promulgating
and applying the laws and measures" that impinged on freedom of trade
and navigation.

The 15 members of the European Union all voted in favor of the nonbinding
resolution because of U.S. laws that seek to prevent foreign firms from
having commercial dealings with Cuba. Belgium, speaking for the EU, said
Europeans deplored the consequences of the embargo on the Cuban people.

U.S. representative James Cunningham said the trade embargo was designed
to promote democracy in Cuba and the United States had moved dramatically
to allow Havana to buy food.

"Cuba, long out of step with the trend of democratization in the
world ... has proven itself even more out of step with its recent hideous
remarks on the U.S. reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks,"
he said.

The Cuban minister protested against the placing of Havana on the State
Department's list of terrorist states.

"This is an outrage to the Cuban people, who have, in fact, as everyone
knows, been the victims of countless terrorist acts organized and financed
with total impunity from U.S. territory," Perez said.

"The blockade does not enjoy majority support in the United States,"
he added.

Global ridicule extinguishes Montgomery's anti-smoking bill

Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) on November 27 vetoed
legislation that would have regulated smoking in the privacy of people's
homes, reversing course after a rash of worldwide attention and a public
opinion backlash.

Duncan took the action after a key County Council member who voted for
the legislation took a public stand against it, a defection that means
supporters no longer have the votes to override the veto.

Council President Blair G. Ewing (D-At Large) acknowledged that political
reality, expressing disappointment but saying the erosion of political
support had effectively killed the legislation.

Council member Michael L. Subin (D-At Large), an opponent, said, "We've
become the laughingstock of the world."

The provision, which the council passed the week before as part of a
package of indoor air-quality standards, represented one of the most restrictive
anti-smoking measures in the nation. Had it become law, the legislation
would have set fines of up to $750 for people who smoke in their homes
if the smoke crossed property lines and offended neighbors.

The week before the vote, Duncan unequivocally promised to support the
measure. On November 27, he said he had changed his mind after realizing
that the anti-smoking provision "went way too far" and had received
little public input before passage.

"Based on initial discussions with my staff, I believed that this
bill could become law and that we could manage the tobacco smoke issues
through a combination of education and prudent use of enforcement resources,"
Duncan said in his veto message. "Upon further consideration, however,
it has become clear that the tobacco smoke provisions will be nothing
more than a tool to be used in squabbles between neighbors, and that significant
resources will be required to address these complaints."

Council member Howard A. Denis (R-Potomac-Bethesda) had urged Duncan
to veto the bill, announcing that he could no longer support legislation
that the public "overwhelmingly" opposed.

The legislation was initially designed to give environmental regulators
an enforcement tool to deal with indoor air-pollution complaints involving
such irritants as mold, excessive dust, pesticides, paint and carpet glue
odors, or gases such as carbon monoxide.

Denis said he voted in favor of the bill, despite the decision by other
council members to add tobacco smoke to the list of regulated pollutants,
because he believed it was important to address indoor air-quality health
issues.

But since then, Denis said, the legislation generated widespread ridicule.
Conservative commentator -- and Montgomery County resident -- George Will
compared the council to the Taliban on ABC's nationally televised show
"This Week." Journalists deluged the council with requests for
interviews, and the Moscow Times even weighed in with a column.

"I got put in the same bag as the Taliban," Denis said. "The
public has spoken. The reputation of the county is literally at stake
here."

Denis's switch was critical because his vote had provided the veto-proof
majority.

The version that the Duncan administration originally drafted excepted
tobacco smoke from the new regulations, which define indoor pollutants
as agents that are "likely to pose a health hazard to humans, plants
or animals or unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of residential
or non-residential property."

But the council rejected that exception, arguing that secondhand smoke
should be treated the same as any other air pollutant.

That prompted tobacco companies to threaten a legal challenge, the American
Civil Liberties Union to express concern about the impact on property
rights and opponents on the council to charge that the law would unfairly
target the poor because it would probably have no impact on people who
live in single-family homes on large lots.

Ewing said the council is likely to pass an air-quality bill that is
virtually identical to Duncan's original proposal. But he blasted Duncan
for doing an about-face.

"I think the public will be disappointed," Ewing said. "Tobacco
smoke is a toxic air pollutant. . . . So to have an indoor air-pollution
bill that doesn't include tobacco is absurd on the face of it."

The council has supported a number of tobacco regulations, including
a ban on restaurant smoking that is tied up in court and a ban on outdoor
smoking in Friendship Heights that did not survive a legal challenge.

"It's the same old saga -- there's a significant vocal minority
who do not want to see us regulate a lethal product," said council
member Steven A. Silverman (D-At Large), a supporter. "What you are
not hearing are the people who say this is a good thing, and if it saves
a few lives, great."

Residents and nonresidents flooded the council with letters.

Some, like Shana Trostel, of Rockville, praised the council for taking
steps to "protect those who suffer from exposure to other people's
tobacco smoke." Trostel, who suffers from asthma, wrote that she
cannot use her deck or open her windows because of her neighbor's smoke.

But most letters blasted the legislation as paternalistic.

"While I fully support restricting smoking in public places, I am
aghast at the prospect of such ridiculous antics arising from this council,"
wrote Joseph Wilmot, of Poolesville.

Most Americans back U.S. tactics

Most Americans broadly endorse steps taken by the Bush administration
to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists and express little concern
that these measures may violate the rights of U.S. citizens or others
caught up in the ongoing probes, according to a survey by The Washington
Post and ABC News.

Six in 10 agree with President Bush that suspected terrorists should
be tried in special military tribunals and not in U.S. criminal courts
-- a proposal that has come under increasing fire from civil libertarians
as well as some influential Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Seven in 10 Americans believe the government is doing enough to protect
the civil rights of suspected terrorists. An equally large majority believe
the government is sufficiently guarding the rights of Arab Americans and
American Muslims as well as noncitizens from Arab and Muslim countries.

The findings reflect a wellspring of public support as the Bush administration
continues even its most controversial investigative methods to bring suspected
terrorists to justice. The administration is clearly counting on such
support to help counter mounting concern on Capitol Hill.

"They're flying in the face of a lot of influential people, including
senior members of the House and Senate from their own party," said
Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Instead,
they're relying on public opinion."

Nearly three out of four of those surveyed also agree that it should
be legal for the federal government to wiretap conversations between suspected
terrorists and their attorneys. An even larger majority -- 79 percent
-- support plans by federal prosecutors to interview about 5,000 young
men here on temporary visas from the Middle East. And nearly nine in 10
believe the United States is justified in detaining about 600 foreign
nationals for violating immigration laws.

"If we keep going the way we're going with civil liberties, other
countries are going to see us as a patsy," said Marta Salcedo, manager
of a dental office in Manhattan. "You have to change with the times."

Salcedo said she had little regard for the rights of suspects held in
connection with the attacks. "They should torture them," she
said. "Sometimes you have to do things that are uncivilized."

Not all Americans are comfortable with Bush's tactics, with women and
minorities somewhat less likely than men and whites to embrace them.

"I am concerned that we not become a runaway train when it comes
to civil liberties," said Melissa Atkinson, a retired librarian and
community volunteer in Tulsa. "The idea of secret military tribunals
makes me nervous. . . . It's always harder to get these basic freedoms
back once we relinquish them."

The apparent willingness of many Americans to place security above civil
rights protections comes as no surprise to experts on public opinion.

"In periods of high stress and threat, support for civil liberties
goes down," said George Marcus, a political scientist at Williams
College. "Most Americans don't think of rights as unqualified or
universal. There are two codicils: Rights are only for us American citizens.
And two, rights assume that people are going to use them wisely or responsibly."

A total of 759 randomly selected adults were interviewed Tuesday night
for this poll. Margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage
points.

The survey found overwhelming support for Bush and the war in Afghanistan.
Bush's overall job approval rating stood at 89 percent, largely unchanged
in the past two months. A similar majority supported the U.S. military
action in Afghanistan, and 93 percent said the war was going well, up
eight points from earlier this month.

The survey also suggests that Americans would support broadening the
shooting war on terrorism to include Iraq. Nearly eight in 10 -- 78 percent
-- favored U.S. forces taking military action against Iraq to topple Saddam
Hussein.

The survey also suggests that although the majority of Americans say
the nation should play a significant role in ensuring stability in Afghanistan,
they are less interested in the United States taking the lead in nonmilitary
efforts.

One in three said America should take the lead in providing humanitarian
aid or peacekeeping troops, with four in 10 supporting "a large role"
in these efforts. One in five said America should play the principal part
in establishing a new Afghan government. In contrast, more than half said
the United States should play the lead role in ensuring that terrorist
groups cannot reestablish themselves in Afghanistan.

"The one issue where you're getting the administration going straight
into the wind with the American public is on peacekeeping," said
Robert Orr, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
and a Clinton-era National Security Council staffer. "The public
generally wants the U.S. involved in peacekeeping, which is clearly different
from where the administration is going in saying there is no role for
the U.S. in the peacekeeping phase."